I am interested in this work.
I will start focusing on it once the use case draft is a little bit more
mature.
abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-openproxy(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-openproxy(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Markus Hofmann
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:03 AM
To: OPES Group
Subject: Re: [Fwd: interest in the rules language]
Alex Rousskov wrote:
I did not see anybody digging in. At this point, I have to
wonder if I
am the only person left interested in the "common rules language"
problem. Did we lose the momentum and interest on this
topic? Does it
make sense to continue working on rules (regardless of
Seive versus P
question)?
There were a few folks interested in the topic when the charter was
discussed and before various (mostly IETF-imposed) delays
put the topic
on the backburner. Should we assume that those folks lost
interest (due
to delays or any other reason)?
Folks - we need to know if anyone is still interested in this work.
Doesn't make sense to drag this along without anyone working
on it and
without making real progress.
Could anyone interested in the rules language work please
speak up, in
particular the ones who expressed interest in contributing to
the work
when we re-charted (don't make me go back into the email archives to
dig out the names... :). If we don't hear back, I recommend we fold
this activity.
Thanks,
Markus